My first reaction has been to stay out of this, I want to be fair to the Princess, this is not about me. But as I sit in front of my TV listening to tabloid journalists, and editor's dodging their own responsibility and placing the blame on the drunken driver, or society, or Princess Di, I now feel that the only fair thing that I can do is stand up and make one clear concise statement: Stand up and ask this to the self-appointed spokesman, Steven Coz, the editor of the National Enquirer, and all other tabloids positioning themselves as innocents;

"The Princess of Wales is dead. And who should we see about that? The driver of the car, the paparazzis, or the magazines and papers who purchase these pictures and make bounty hunters out of photographers? The same magazines, television shows and papers that use their pages creating the news, causing altercations, and then filming them. Well, you must be exhilarated. You bought and paid for one of the greatest news stories of the year. And for your success you should be held accountable.

But how will we do that? How will we make you responsible for your actions? Not buy your papers or watch your shows, maybe. Pass criminal laws restricting paparazzis? No. Censorship can never be the solution. The only thing worse than an out of control press acting with no regard for decency would be restricting that very same press. Ultimately there is no legislating good taste or doing what is right. And you, sir, and your colleagues, wallow in that fact. Mr. Coz, I watch as you scramble for high ground, saying that you won't purchase these pictures. Pictures of a dying Princess trapped in her car. Well, I am impressed. What ethics.

Your cover of your magazine this week said "Di Can't Get Enough Sex." It's on the stands still. I also watch as you take your position on CNN, saying as long as there is a market for this then you are just supplying the goods. It's because of the public's insatiable appetite for celebrity. They're to blame, the public is.

All right. So let's use your argument. There are also thousands of people with an insatiable appetite for crack. The person who supplies that is called a dealer, and if he's caught he goes to jail. A photographer will commit a crime to get compromising pictures and later you merely buy those pictures, absolving yourself of any responsibility. If you weren't hiding behind the profession of journalism, you would be an accomplice to a crime and you would go to jail. I am not singling you out, Mr. Coz, you have made yourself the spokesman. And this involves most press. But you are right about one thing. This is not about celebrity, this is about all of us, Richard Jewell, parents of children killed on Flight 800, everyone.

But maybe there is something that we can do about you. You and all the editors, television and print, who purchase their news. Two words, "malicious intent." They are two words that every ethical journalist says is the loophole the tabloids hide behind. Those two words exist in a relatively recent Supreme Court decision changing the libel laws. We survived 120 years without them. You change these two words and all journalists are held accountable in a civil trial. One would still have to prove your story untrue, but they wouldn't have to prove the unprovable, what's in your mind. Was it your intent to be malicious? We cannot prove that. They are two words in the law that I will spend every free moment trying to change, and I am well aware of the undertaking, it is no small task.